FLORA OF THE SHASTA FORMATION. 219 



contains 36 specimens. Nineteen of them show nothing that can be even approxi- 

 mately determined. Most of these have vague imprints of stems. The remaining 

 specimens contain fragments of leaves that give some hint of their character, but 

 none of them can be positively determined. 



1. A fragment of a rather large leaf, showing no principal nerve. The nerva- 

 tion, which is poorly preserved, is all equally strong and shows an anastomosis that 

 may be either that of Sagenopteris or Protesephyllum. It looks more like a Protefe- 

 phyllum. 



2. Four of the specimens have each a small fragment of an ultimate pinna of 

 some fern. They may be of the same species, but the pinnules of one are longer and 

 proportionally narrower than those of the others. No nervation is shown and the 

 preservation is too imperfect to admit of even generic determmation. They look 

 like Gleichenia, or a small Dicksonia. Gleichenia gracilis Heer is not unlike these 

 fossUs. This Gleichenia is found in both the Kome and the Atane beds of Greenland. 



3. Four specimens contain each a small fragment of the ultimate pinna of the 

 type of Tlmjrsopteris rarinervis or Asplenium Dichsonianum Heer. They are too 

 poorly preserved to make out their true character. 



4. Three of the specimens show each a small fragment of the ultimate pinna of a 

 fern that has the appearance of a small Cladophlebis. None of them show more than 

 a few poorly preserved pinnules. They agree pretty well with Pteris Albertsii 

 (Dunk.) Heer of the Atane beds of Greenland, but may equallj' as well be one of the 

 Cladophlebis of the Lower Potomac. 



5. One specimen contains a fragment of a detached leaf that, in form and size, 

 agrees well with Nageiopsis longifolia Font, of the Lower Potomac. As, however, 

 the basg, tip, and nervation are not shown, it is impossible to determine its character. 



6. Another specimen shows a similarly imperfect fragment of what may be 

 Nageiopsis heterophylla Font. At least it is a smaller leaf of the same type as the one 

 last mentioned. 



7. Still another fragment of the same type of leaf agrees best with Nageiopsis 

 angustifolia Font. None of these sufEce to give more than liints. 



8. One specimen shows a fragment, about 15 mm. wide, of a larger leaf of the 

 same general character as the preceding. It may be a large Nageiopsis or Podozam- 

 ites. Its shape and size are not shown. The nerves are parallel, unbranched, 

 strong, and apparently double. 



9. One specimen shows three detached rigid leaves of some conifer that agrees 

 weU with Sequoia rigida Heer of. the Greenland Atane beds. The fragments, how- 

 ever, are not sufficient to permit identification with that plant. 



10. Another fragment may be a Nilsonia or Tfeniopteris. It has neither base 

 nor tip. A pretty strong midrib is present. The lateral nerves are obscure, but 

 seem to be those of one or the other of these two genera. 



If the plant described fii-st is not a Protesephyllum, this collection has no 

 dicotyledon. 



